Eilzabeth Dakin, Administration of William Dakin, Deccased, v Brown and Munt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1849 |
| Date | 19 June 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 443
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
elizabeth dakin, Administratrix of William Dakin, Deceased, v. brown and munt. June 19, 1849. In case against engineers for so negligently constructing and erecting a machine, that it exploded, and killed the husband of the plaintiff, the defendants pleaded, that, at the time of the accident, the machine was unfit for use, by reason of the dampness of the brick-work in which it was set; that they so informed the deceased, and cautioned him not to use it; and that, by reason of the premises, the machine exploded, as in the declaration mentioned,-concluding with a verification :-Held, that the plea did not present a confession and avoidance of the whole cause of action, but was an informal traverse of a part only, and therefore bad. Case. The declaration stated that William Dakin, in his life-time, to wit, on the 17th of January, 1847, retained and employed the defendants, at their request, in the way of their trade and business, to make and construct for him the said William Dakin a certain coffee-roasting apparatus, and to erect and affix the [93] same for him in and upon certain premises of him the said William Dakin, to wit, situate, &c., for the purpose of roasting coffee therewith, for certain pecuniary remuneration and reward to be therefore paid to the defendants by the said William Dakin; that the defendants then, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, accepted the said retainer and employment, and then agreed with the said William Dakin, to make and construct, erect, and affix the said coffee-roasting apparatus for the purpose, upon the terms, and in the manner aforesaid; that afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, the defendants did, in pretended pursuance of their said retainer and employment, and in pretended performance of their said agreement, make and construct a certain coffee roasting apparatus, for the purpose of roasting coffee therewith, and did then erect and affix the same in and upon the said premises of the said William Dakin for the said purpose; nevertheless, that the defendants, disregarding their duty in and about the premises, behaved and conducted themselves so wrongfully, negligently, carelessly, and improperly in and about the said making and constructing, erecting and affixing of the last-mentioned apparatus, and made and constructed the same of such bad, insufficient, and improper materials, and in so bad, improper, and unskilful a manner, and erected and affixed the same so badly, improperly, and unskilfully, and conducted themselves with such gross carelessness, negligence, and want of skill, that, by and through the defendant's wrongful acts, neglect, and default, in and about the premises, and not otherwise, the said apparatus so made and constructed, erected, and affixed by the defendants as aforesaid, was not reasonably fit for the said purpose of roasting coffee therewith; but that, on the contrary thereof, the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapter 1421, HB 2813 – Relating to the adoption of a nonsubstantive revision of statutes relating to the licensing and regulation of certain professions and business practices, including conforming amendments, repeals, and penalties
...the information compiled under this section 92-18 available to the public and appropriate state agencies. (V.A.C.S. 92-19 Art. 249c, Sec. 8C(b).) 92-20 Sec. 1052.102. COMPLAINTS. (a) A resident of this state may 92-21 file with the board a written statement charging a landscape 92-22 archit......